Rajasthan Court October 1997 Judgments
Prahlad Son of Kishan Gopal Cheepa Vs. Smt. Jamni Daughter of Nathulal ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-21-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC218; 1997(2)WLN548
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Against the order passed by the court below granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent wife, the petitioner husband has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. as no second revision is maintainable under Section 399(3), Cr. P.C. This is nothing but to circumvent the bar this petition is filed. Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain such petition. Even for the sake of argument that the petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is maintainable, then also on merit, I do not find any substance to entertain this petition. The Courts below have rightly awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month to the respondent wife. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed.2. However, Shri B.L. Mandhana submits that the Courts below ought to have passed an order of adjusting Rs. 150/- per month, which was awarded by the trial Court by way of interim maintenance till the disposal of the main maintenance petition has no substanc...
Tag this Judgment!Ratan Chand Lodha Vs. Income Tax Officer and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Raj)1
BY THE COURT :This is a petition under s. 482 r/w s. 397 Cr.PC against the order passed by learned Special Court of Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur, in Cr. Case No. 178/86, ITO vs. Ratan Chand Lodha, which was passed by him on 2nd December, 1995. By this order the learned Magistrate ordered that the charges under s. 276(c) and 277 of the IT Act, 1961, be framed against the accused petitioner. The accused had submitted an application under s. 245(2) CrPC which was dismissed by him.2. Brief facts are that the petitioner is a jeweller and a regular income-tax assessee. On or around 29th May, 1979, an inspection was carried out at his premises by the officials of the IT Department and his various books. Statement of accounts, files, loose papers, etc., were seized, for the year 1979-80 showing income of Rs. 16,950. Inquiries were made and a sum of Rs. 1,68,888 was added to the declared income for the period in question. An appeal was filed before the CIT who partl...
Tag this Judgment!Madan Lal and ors. Vs. Income Tax Officer.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: (1998)144CTR(Raj)57; 1998(3)WLC700
V. K. SINGHAL, J. :By this petition under s. 482 CrPC the proceedings before the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) in Criminal Case No. 264/95 have been prayed to be quashed. An application under s. 245(2) of the CrPC was moved by the petitioners for discharging them of the alleged offences under ss. 276C and 277 of the IT Act, 1961, r/w s. 197 and 120B of the IPC.2. A complaint was filed by the ITO ward II, Alwar, in respect of asst. yr. 1982-83 on the ground of concealment of income by declaring the income of Rs. 15,195 in the return submitted on 30th July, 1982, whereas the additions were made of Rs. 33,000 by the ITO on 30th August, 1983. The additions were reduced to Rs. 16,000 by order dt. 27th April, 1985 by the appellate authority. The petitioner thereafter filed a revised return on 21st January, 1986, and surrendered this amount of Rs. 16,000. The penalty of Rs. 5,632 was levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, by order dt. 21st March, 1986. The said penal...
Tag this Judgment!Mangu @ Mangilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC376; 1997(2)WLN541
J.S. Sidhu, J.1. Heard. Perused the relevant record as also the photostat copy of the letter dated 14.6.1996 of the District Superintendent of Police (Rural) Kota addressed to the District Magistrate, Kota wherein an adverse report was sent in respect of petitioner Mangu @ Mangilal.2. Petitioner Mangu @ Mangilal who, is a life convict and has been at present lodged in District Jail, Alwar has submitted these letter petitions wherein he has submitted that he has already suffered more than one fourth of his sentence, that he has to look after is ailing mother and prayed that respondents be directed to consider his case for releasing on him first parole.3. A learned SB of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1522/1996 vide its order dated 19.9.1996 directed the District Parole Committee, Kota to consider the case of the petitioner in view of he provisions of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Prisons Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (in short Parole Rules, 1958) and to decide the same within one month...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Nath @ Tahalnath Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC766; 1997(2)WLN543
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This is a petition Under Section 482 Cr. R.C. by an accused turned Approver in Sessions Case No, 143 of 1996 State of Rajasthan v. Manu and Ors. Under Sections 201, 302 r.w. 120B and 147 IPC pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer. The petitioner had prayed for his release on bail on the ground that since he had already been examined as a witness at the trial of the case by the learned Sessions Judge and had made full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or obettor, in the commission thereof in terms of the acceptance of the tender of pardon by him and thus he had complied with the conditions upon which such tender was made and his plea had been accordingly recorded and the trial court had proceeded with the trial of the case, he should be released on bail pending the passing of the judgment in the case. The learned Trial Judge did not...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sunder and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN549
B.J. Shethna, J.1. Admit. Issue notice to the other side.2. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice for the State of Rajasthan.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 8.11.1996 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner accused to drop the proceedings in view the Apex Court's judgment in common cause case reported in 1996 SC 1619; only on the ground that after the trial is commenced, the case cannot be dropped. This view of the learned Magistrate is wholy erroneous.5. The case under Section 323, IPC, which is of a trivial nature, if is pending against the petitioner accused since 1988. It is a case of protracted trial which cannot be allowed to be continued in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated November 8, 1996 passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application to drop the proceedings is set aside and the proceedings pending ...
Tag this Judgment!Naresh Chandra Shukla Vs. R.P.S.C. and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-20-1997
Reported in: 1998(3)WLC87; 1997(2)WLN554
Arun Madan, J.1. The questions of law which arise for determination of this Court in the instant writ petition are as indicated herein below:i. Whether under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is open to this Court to issue a mandamus to the respondents i.e. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') and Secretary to the Government, Agriculture Department Government of Rajasthan (Respondent No. 2) particularly when, the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing his legal right for performance of the corresponding legal duty ?ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief contrary to 'the rules particularly by when, no such legal or statutory right was subsisting as on the date of preferring the writ petition to this Court?iii. Whether the statutory duty that may be enjoined by mandamus can be imposed by the Constitution of India or a statute or by rules or orders having the force of law ?iv. Whether a...
Tag this Judgment!Meena Goyal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-17-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC366; 1997(2)WLN523
M.A.A. Khan, J.1. This is an application Under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. by the complainant-injured and arises under following circumstances:2. On June 30, 1996 the applicant lodged a report with the P/s. Kaman, Distt. Bharatpur, alleging therein that on that day at about 11.00 A.M. Madan Mohan Singhal, respondent No. 2. led an unlawful assembly of a number of persons to her house, situate at Kama. This unlawful assembly was armed with Weapon like lathis, stones, spears etc. The members of that assembly, including Madan Mohan Singhal, respondent, broke open the door, windows etc. of the house of the applicant, trespassed into the house, damaged valuable belongings of the applicant, belaboured her and other inmates of the house and finally looted some valuables and set certain documents on fire. The applicant was, at the relevant time, the Chair-person of Municipality Kama. On the basis of this report Crime No. 120 of 1996 Under Sections 395, 436, 452 IPC was registered at the police stat...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2614; 1998(1)WLC315
ORDERAmaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. with the object of getting expunged certain remarks made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Milap Chandra Jain in the order dated 29th January 1993 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 17/91 Parbat Singh v. State of Rajasthan. In para No. 6 of the order dated 29th January, 1993 this Court made the following observations :-14 dates were fixed in the case for recording the statement of the Investigating Officer Karan Raj as the learned Public Prosecutor did not take necessary steps to ascertain his latest address as was expected from a Public Prosecutor. Such a lapse on his part cannot be allowed to help the accused persons in a murder case but deserves to be reported to the Government in the Law Department for necessary action against him.3. The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of the case may be bri...
Tag this Judgment!Poonam Chand Vs. Smt. Manju
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-16-1997
Reported in: 1998WLC(Raj)UC386; 1998(1)WLN536
A.S. Godara, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order dated 12.8.1997 passed by the learned Addl. District judge No. 2, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No. 54/97 thereby allowing application for interim custody of Hindu minor son Mahesh to his mother-non-petitioner.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the petition are as follows:3. Applicant-non-petitioner filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short the Act of 1890) along with another Section 12(1) of the same in the court of District Judge, Bikaner who, in turn, transferred the same to the court of Addl. District Judge, Bikaner for disposal. The applicant's case is that, admittedly, she is mother of her minor son Mahesh who was born on 1.11.1993 after his legal marriage with Lekh Ram on 5.5.1990 at Bikaner. Lekh Ram suffered from cancerous diseased and he expired on 28.4.1996. The petitioners, who are non-applicants in the main application...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »